2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Defendant D did not explain to the deceased that there is a reasonable possibility of death after an operation. Defendant D did not sufficiently explain that the possibility of death is reasonable for Plaintiff A and his family member, who is the guardian of the deceased, and rather neglected the possibility of birth.

B. The Defendant hospital’s employer liability is Defendant D’s employer, and is liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the tort caused by Defendant D’s negligence.

(1) The court of first instance dismissed this part of the plaintiffs' claim for damages due to Defendant D's breach of duty of care, and only the defendants appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, which does not fall within the scope of the judgment of this court).

3. Determination

A. We examine the violation of the duty to explain by Defendant D. In general, in case where a doctor performs a surgery or other surgery to a patient, which is likely to cause a bad result, and where a medical act is expected to cause a death, etc., or where a doctor performs a medical act, which is anticipated to cause a serious result such as death, he/she has a duty to explain the relevant patient or his/her legal representative about the symptoms, treatment method and necessity of the disease, the anticipated risk of the occurrence, etc. in light of the current medical level, and to sufficiently compare the patient's necessity or risk and to allow the patient to choose whether to receive the medical act, but he/she is not expected or expected to receive the medical act in question.